I'm a RedHat user, and I started out with slackware. I didn't switch
because of ease of installation, but because of availability. About the
only difference that I can think of between the two (with respect to
your question) is that the "rpm" engine is native to it and not with
slackware. Half the software on my system is from tarballs, and the
other half is rpm's. With rpm you can install, uninstall, and upgrade
easily. You don't have to fiddle with tracking down all the sym-links
and such. You can pretty much do whatever you want.
Lloyd Sumpter wrote:
>
> I don't want to start a "package war", but I'm thinking of switching
> from Slackware to Redhat. I don't give a fig about "ease of installation"
> - I've been installing Linux from 0.97. In fact, my concern is that Redhat
> won't let me remain "independant".
> Can I still get source tarballs and compile under Redhat? Does the
> "configure/make/make install" still work? Is there compatibility problems
> between "non-redhat" programs (i.e. source tarballs rather than .rpm) and
> glibc, etc? What if I want/need to install "non-Redhat" libraries?
> I'm assuming that if I install some stuff as source, it ruins the rpm
> database (in terms of dependancies, etc.). Is this correct?
>
> Or is a less user-friendly package like Slackware or Debian still a
> better choice for us renegades?
>
> =======================================================================
> Lloyd Sumpter E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Protection and Control Design or: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> BC Hydro, Vancouver, CANADA PHONE: (604) 528-3078
> "organizing Pagans is like herding cats"
--
Brian Howe
Linux Geek in Training
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and
over and expecting different results."
